Bioprocess for coproduction of ethanol and mycoproteins

ABSTRACT

The present invention relates to the co-production and isolation of mycoprotein and ethanol from carbohydrate feedstock material (e.g cereals). The present invention also provides a fermentation system for the co-production of mycoprotein from a carbohydrate feedstock material.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to the co-production and isolation ofmycoprotein and ethanol from carbohydrate feedstock material (e.gcereals). The present invention also provides a fermentation system forthe co-production of mycoprotein from a carbohydrate feedstock material.

BACKGROUND TO THE INVENTION

Livestock farming satisfies the rapidly growing consumer driven demandfor meat and dairy products and utilises approximately 70% of totalglobal agricultural land for grazing and feed crop production. However,growing population and changing dietary preferences for meat and dairywill place increasing demand on global agricultural land.

Biotechnology offers some potential for meat substitutes to be producedmore efficiently with lower environmental impact. The notable example isMycoprotein (Quorn) produced by aerobic fermentation of glucose syrup.It is currently marketed as a (relatively expensive) healthy vegetarianalternative. It's relatively high cost is associated with use of refinedfeedstock (glucose syrup) and high fixed costs associated withinvestment cost in a dedicated modest capacity plant and energy costsassociated with aerobic fermentation.

Livestock feed largely comprises of cereals (maize, wheat) providing themajority of carbohydrate, combined with protein enhancement (main sourcesoymeal) to enhance the protein content for optimal nutrition. Approx40% of grains are used as livestock feed. Agricultural yield of soybeansis typically significantly lower than cereals.

Fermentation from grain feedstock typically converts carbohydratesleaving a distiller dried grains with solubles (DDGS) residueconcentrated in protein. This is used as a high protein component inlivestock feed, however it's relatively low digestibility limits its mixratio.

Global bioethanol production exceeds 60 million tepa, the 2 majorsources being fermentation of cereals (particularly US maize convertingapprox 40% of its production) and Brazilian sugarcane. The economics(excluding government incentives) and environmental benefits ofbioethanol from cereals (maize/wheat) are marginal. There aresignificant political issues associated with food v fuel pressures onland use and energy security.

U.S. Pat. No. 4,447,534 describes a process of producing ethanol usingyeast where control of the growth conditions can increase the yield ofthe yeast and hence yeast derived unicellular protein.

Silva et al (Waste Management, 31 (2011), 108-114) describes a method ofutilising the residue of spirit production and bio-ethanol for proteinproduction by yeasts, such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candidaparapsilosis. The single cell protein form the yeast may be used as asource of supplemental protein for animal feed.

WO2009/079183 describes a process for improving the nutritional qualityof a feed spent waste product which remains after fermentation of grainto produce alcohol. The spent waste product may be fermented with amicrobe which is capable of breaking down cellulose and/or hemicelluloseto one or more sugars and in turn using the sugar(s) to proliferate. Asthe microbes contain protein their proliferation serves to increase theprotein content of the spent waste product. A variety of microbesincluding bacteria, yeasts and fungi are described, but there is noteaching of providing any single cell protein in isolation of the spentwaste product.

It would be desirable to be able to provide a system which can beadapted to be able to produce both mycoprotein and ethanol in isolationof other material, whilst optionally being capable of varying the amountof each co-product based upon desired requirements, such as prevailingeconomic and/or socio-economic concerns.

It is amongst the object of the present invention to provide a methodfor the production, optionally co-production, of isolated mycoproteinand/or ethanol.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In a first aspect there is provided an integrated system capable ofproducing and isolating mycoprotein derived from filamentous fungi andethanol from a carbohydrate feedstock.

The carbohydrate feedstock may be a mixed or single feedstock.

It will be appreciated from the above that the order of mycoprotein andethanol production can be swapped, such that ethanol can be producedbefore the mycoprotein and vice versa. However, in a preferredembodiment of the present invention mycoprotein is produced initially,followed by ethanol. As mentioned above, the methods and systems of thepresent invention are integrated and controllable in terms of the amountof mycoprotein or ethanol which can be produced. Through appropriatecontrol of the substrate used to obtain the mycoprotein or ethanol andgrowth conditions, especially oxygen content, it is possible to vary, ina controllable manner, the amount of mycoprotein or ethanol produced.Thus, for example, depending on prevailing commercial requirements, itis possible to vary the ratio of mycoprotein to ethanol which isproduced in accordance with the invention. This may be achievedmanually, semi-automatically or fully automatically. For example, in anautomatic or semi-automatic process a user may indicate or input into auser programmable interface, for example, the desired mycoprotein toethanol ratio and the system can then control the substrate flux andgrowth conditions in order to achieve the required mycoprotein toethanol ratio.

Mycoprotein, as referred to herein is understood to be a form of singlecell protein specifically produced by filamentous fungi, such asFusarium species including Fusarium venenatum.

The single feedstock may comprise a plurality of metabolisablesubstrates, typically carbohydrate containing substrate(s). Preferablythe feedstock comprises one or more cereal materials. The present systemmay be differentiated from non-integrated systems which may requireseparate feedstocks being provided for a mycoprotein producing processand an ethanol producing process.

Mycoprotein may be obtained through aerobic digestion of a substratematerial. Ethanol may be produced through anaerobic fermentation of asubstrate material, although optionally there may be an initial periodof aerobic digestion in order to allow growth of the microorganism(s)which are capable of generating ethanol during anaerobic digestion.

In one embodiment the microorganism(s) for use in producing mycoproteinand ethanol are different. In such an embodiment the microorganism(s)capable of producing mycoprotein is a Fusarium species, such as Fusariumvenenatum and the microorganism(s) capable of producing ethanol are aSaccharomyces species, such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The inventorshave observed that is it possible for a single type of microorganism tobe capable of producing both mycoprotein and thereafter ethanol. Thus,in one embodiment the integrated method of the invention employs asingle type of microorganism to produce both mycoprotein and ethanol.Such a single type of microorganism may be a Fusarium species such as F.venenatum, or multiple species.

In a further aspect there is provided an integrated method for theco-production of mycoprotein and ethanol from a cereal material, themethod comprising the steps of:

-   a) providing an aqueous fermentable broth comprising one or more    cereal materials;-   b) fermenting at least a portion of the aqueous fermentable broth    with a micro-organism(s) in order to obtain mycoprotein or ethanol    respectively and partially fermented broth;-   c) separating/isolating the mycoprotein or ethanol from the    partially fermented broth;-   d) fermenting at least a portion of the partially fermented broth,    optionally with a portion of unfermented aqueous fermentable broth,    with a micro-organism(s) in order to obtain ethanol or mycoprotein    respectively and a spent fermentation residue; and-   e) isolating the ethanol or mycoprotein from the spent fermentation    residue.

Said partially fermented broth may be derived from an initialfermentation broth which has undergone an initial fermentation in orderto produce mycoprotein or ethanol. The partially fermented broth iscapable of being fermented in order to produce the second product,namely ethanol or mycoprotein, depending on what has been producedfirst.

It will be appreciated from the above that the order of mycoprotein andethanol production can be swapped, such that ethanol can be producedbefore the mycoprotein and vice versa. However, in a preferredembodiment of the present invention mycoprotein is produced initially,followed by ethanol.

The methods of the present invention can be carried out in a batch,continuous or semi-continuous manner.

The method may further comprise the step of separating the spentfermentation residue (also known as stillage) to obtain a wet solidsfraction and a soluble fraction. The soluble fraction can beconcentrated and the resulting syrup may be combined with the wet solidsfraction, which may be dried in order to obtain a material known asDried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS).

Typically said one or more cereal materials may include wheat, maize(corn), barley, rice, sorghum, buckwheat, oats, rye and the like. Thecereal may be of food grade quality or may in fact be material which isno longer suitable for human consumption. One of the aforementionedexamples may be used, or mixtures comprising two or more types ofcereals may be employed in the present invention. The present inventionis not intended to be limited by the type or types of cereals which maybe employed and this may simply be dictated by prevailing economicand/or geographical and hence availability considerations at the time.

The one or more cereal materials may be subjected to a milling, grindingand/or cutting process in order to break the cereal material down intosmaller fragments and also potentially to release some of the proteins,sugars and other materials which may be present in the cereal. Thebroken down material may be mixed with water to a concentration of forexample 170-500 to 50 g/L and the pH adjusted as necessary, in order toprovide the fermentation broth.

Any starch which may be present in the fermentation broth may besubjected to hydrolysation or partial hydrolysation by employing one ormore of gelatinization, liquefaction and/or saccharification. Starch isfound in nature as insoluble, non-dispersible granules resistant toenzymic breakdown. Gelatinisation is the swelling of the starch granulein the presence of heat and water. At this point, the starch or groundcereal slurry thickens considerably and would be difficult to process ifan alpha-amylase were not added to partially hydrolyse the starch todextrins. A dextrin containing solution is generally much more fluid orliquefied. The alpha-amylase serves to reduce the viscosity of thesolution and also to produce a lower molecular size substrate. A lowermolecular size substrate molecule is desired for the efficient action ofglucoamylase which hydrolyses the dextrins to glucose.

Enzymes such as alpha-amylase and glucoamylase may be added in order tobreak down or hydrolyse the starch which is present. The alpha-amylaseis a bacterial thermostable endo-amylase. It hydrolyses α-1,4 bonds atrandom points in the starch molecule to rapidly reduce the viscosity ofgelatinised starch solutions. This enzyme is a metal ion-containingprotein and requires a small amount of calcium ion during use formaximum activity and stability. The enzyme cannot hydrolyse α-1,6 bondsbut can bypass these branch points in amylopectin. The product of thereaction is dextrins—short glucose chains, and small amounts of glucoseand maltose.

Glucoamylase, produced by fungi, is an exo-amylase. It hydrolyses themaltose and dextrins from the non-reducing end of the molecule.Glucoamylase hydrolyses both α-1,4 and α-1,6 bonds to completely degradethe dextrins to glucose. The enzyme is optimally active at pH 3.5-4.5.Typically alpha-amylase may be added at a concentration of 0.25-1.5% w/wof the solid material and glucoamylase may be added at a concentrationof 0.25-3% w/w of the solid material. Following the enzyme digestions,the fermentation broth may be subjected to a heat treatment in order todestroy the enzymes and kill any bacteria which may be present and whichcould interfere with subsequent process steps.

However, the addition of enzymes, adjustment of pH and heating andcooling which is necessary adds to the cost dramatically and cantherefore be undesirable. The inventors have observed thatmicroorganisms such as Fusarium venenatum (F. venenatum) can undergofermentation with unhydrolysed cereal grain starch solution. Asconventional mycoprotein production generally requires glucose as astarting carbon source, it was surprising that material which had notbeen subjected to starch hydrolysis could be used to make mycoprotein.This could lead to considerable costs savings when carrying out thepresent process without necessarily having to carry out the liquefactionand/or saccharification steps.

Mycoprotein production is carried out using a filamentous fungus such asF. venenatum to ferment material within the fermentable broth. Asmentioned above hydrolysis of starch may or may not be carried out priorto the fermentation being carried out. An appropriate source of nitrogenand nutrients, such as Vogel salts, may be provided for effectivemycoprotein fermentation (approximately 1-L of Vogel salts supplementedwith 40 g of glucose). This may be added prior to and/or duringfermentation.

It may be desirable to include an anti-foaming agent during thefermentation in order to minimise any foaming which may occur due to,for example, proteins present in the fermentation broth. For examplerapeseed oil may be added at a concentration up to 1% (v/v). Not onlycan this serve as an anti-foaming agent, but the rapeseed oil can alsobe used as a carbon source and hence can be fermented. It may only benecessary to add an anti-foaming agent, such as rapeseed oil, at thebeginning of the fermentation.

As an aerobic fermentation process, production of mycoprotein requiresthe addition of a source of oxygen as either air or oxygen. Togetherwith the control of other fermentation conditions the extent of aerationwill influence the relative conversion of carbohydrate to mycoproteinand ethanol and can be used to influence the conversion ratio. Theintegrated process producing both products (mycoprotein and ethanol)allows operating conditions which do not require the minimisation ofethanol (which would be a waste byproduct in conventional mycoproteinfermentation) during mycoprotein fermentation. Conditions favouringmycoprotein/ethanol production could be selectively altered in modes ofeither sequential or phased operation. Desirably operating conditionscould be phased to match the extent of more energy intensive aerobicfermentation to mycoprotein with energy supply phasing to match dailyenergy cycles of renewable energy availability.

Mycoprotein and/or ethanol fermentations may be carried out as batch,semi-continuous, or continuous processes. A continuous process may offeradvantage in an ability to maintain optimal steady state controlconditions and interface with continuous separation processes. Oncecompleted, the mycoprotein and spent fermentation broth may be subjectedto a heat treatment in order to remove/destroy nucleic acid, such asRNA, which may be present. The mycoprotein may then beseparated/isolated from the spent fermentation broth, such as bycentrifugation or filtering, for example and then dried. The driedmycoprotein material may then be further processed in order to provide asuitable food grade material. Spent mycoprotein fermentation liquors(combined with separated starch hydrolysate and/or separatedprotein/fibre solids) can be further fermented for ethanol production.S. cerevisiae may be used in order to ferment the material and produceethanol. A typical process is described in Finn et al. (2006).

Once fermentation has been carried out and ethanol produced, it isnecessary to separate/isolate the ethanol from the other material whichis present. This may be achieved through a continuous distillationprocess as described for example in (Cardona and Sanchez, 2007). Thisprovides a high purity of ethanol, which can be further purified bypassing through a molecular sieve, for example, in order to remove waterand further concentrate the ethanol.

Non-ethanol containing material which is removed during the distillationprocess includes solids and soluble material which is typically calledstillage. This solids and soluble material may be separated by pressingor centrifugation, for example, in order to provide a wet solidsmaterial and a liquid. The wet solids material may be further dried andthe liquid may be concentrated in order to provide a syrup. The driedsolid and syrup may be used separately, or combined in order to providea material known as Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles (DDGS).

It can be seen that the present invention provides a process which iscapable of converting a relatively low grade/value material intomycoprotein, which can be used as a human food source; ethanol, whichcan be used as a biofuel; and spent material, such as DDGS, which can beused as an animal feed.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The present invention will now be further described by way ofnon-limiting examples and with reference to the figures which show:

FIG. 1 shows in schematic flow diagram from a typical configuration ofan existing method for ethanol production;

FIG. 2 to FIG. 8 show in schematic flow diagram from a number of examplesystem configurations in accordance with the present invention wherebymycoprotein and ethanol can be co-produced from a grain feedstock.

FIG. 1—Flow diagram of typical configuration of existing method forethanol production.

FIG. 2—Flow diagram of an integrated configuration of co-productionmethod for mycoprotein and ethanol production using two microorganisms.

FIG. 3 Further flow diagram of an integrated configuration ofco-production method for mycoprotein and ethanol production using twomicroorganisms.

FIG. 4 Further flow diagram of an integrated configuration ofco-production method for mycoprotein and ethanol production using twomicroorganisms and different feedstocks.

FIG. 5—Flow diagram of a possible integrated configuration ofco-production method for mycoprotein and ethanol production using asingle microorganism (Aerobic fermentation followed by anaerobicfermentation).

FIG. 6—Flow diagram of an integrated configuration of co-productionmethod for mycoprotein and ethanol production using a singlemicroorganism (Anaerobic fermentation followed by aerobic fermentation).

FIG. 7—Flow diagram of an integrated configuration of co-productionmethod for mycoprotein and ethanol production using a singlemicroorganism.

FIG. 8—Flow diagram of an integrated configuration of co-productionmethod for mycoprotein and ethanol production using a singlemicroorganism (Anaerobic fermentation followed by aerobic fermentation).

FIG. 9—Comparison of growth of F. venenatum in minimal Vogel medium(flasks 1-3) and wheat hydrolysate supplemented with Vogel salts (flasks4-6). The shake flasks were incubated on an orbital shaker at 30° C. and150 rpm. The experiment was performed in triplicate as well as theestimation of the biomass. Samples were taken after 72 h (Experiment 1).

FIG. 10—Batch fermentation of F. venenatum (Vw=1.5-L) with wheathydrolysate supplemented with Vogel salts. Shown is the dry biomass (),glucose (▴) and ethanol (x) trend over the course of the fermentation(Experiment 1).

FIG. 11—Growth of F. venenatum in 70 g/L flour containing hydrolysatewithout enzymes (), with 0.5% w/w α-amylase (ε) and with both 0.5% w/wα-amylase and 1% w/w glucoamylase (□) grown in shake flasks at 28° C.and 150 rpm on an orbital shaker. Samples were taken after 24, 48 and 72hours and analysed in triplicate for biomass content (Experiment 1).

FIG. 12—Optical density (OD) and Dry Cell weight of S. cerevisiae shakeflasks with MYPG and wheat hydrolysate supplemented with Vogel salts.The flasks were incubated at 30° C. and 250 rpm and all contained 20 g/Lglucose as a carbon source. They were grown and analysed in triplicate(Experiment 2).

FIG. 13—Ethanol fermentation with S. cerevisiae using MYPG and WheatHydrolysate respectively. Depicted are the optical densities over thecourse of the fermentation. MYPG was used in fermenter 1 () andfermenter 2 (∘) whereas wheat hydrolysate supplemented with Vogel saltswas used in fermenter 3 (□) and fermenter 4 (Δ). Aeration was 0.82 vvmbetween 8-18 h otherwise 0 vvm. The temperature was held constant at 30°C. and the pH at 5.5 (Experiment 2).

FIG. 14—Ethanol fermentation with S. cerevisiae using MYPG and wheathydrolysate respectively. Shown is the dry biomass increase over thecourse of the fermentation. MYPG was used in fermenter 1 () andfermenter 2 (∘) whereas wheat hydrolysate supplemented with Vogel saltswas used in fermenter 3 (□) and fermenter 4 (Δ). Aeration was 0.82 vvmbetween 8-18 h otherwise 0 vvm. The temperature was held constant at 30°C. and the pH at 5.5 (Experiment 2).

FIG. 15—Dry cell weight (DCW) and glucose trend for first fermentationof the integrated process with F. venenatum (Experiment 3).

FIG. 16—Dry cell weight (DCW), glucose and ethanol trends for secondpart of integrated bioprocess with S. cerevisiae

FIG. 17—Comparison of the dry cell weight trends of the Fusariumvenenatum fermentations with the application of different aerationprofiles (Experiment 4).

FIG. 18—Ethanol production over the course of the Fusarium venenatumfermentations with varying oxygen supply (Experiment 4).

FIG. 19—Trend of glucose concentrations over the course of the F.venenatum fermentations with different fermentation media and differingoxygen supply (Experiment 4).

FIG. 20—Dissolved oxygen (DO, %) profile during the time course of F.venenatum fermentations (Experiment 4).

The following key is to be used in order to interpret the variouscomponents and steps which are carried out in the processes exemplifiedin FIGS. 1-8:

Grain milling physically breaks down the grain to enable starchextraction in downstream processing;

Liquefaction is a process to extract and hydrolyse the starch from thegrain to obtain water soluble carbohydrates suitable for physicalprocessing and fermentation. The grain is mixed and heated with water,typically with the use of enzymes. The heating process additionallysterilises the solution for fermentation;

Separation of the solid protein and fibre by decantation, filtration orcentrifugation is carried out to provide a soluble carbohydrate solutionsuitable for mycoprotein fermentation. This step is not necessary inconventional ethanol bio-refining since the fermentation product ethanolcan be distilled from the slurry;

Aerobic Fermentation provides fermentation growth of the mycoprotein.This operation can be carried out in either batch or continuous mode. Anitrogen source (eg ammonia), nutrients and air/oxygen are fed to thefermenter with cooling under controlled conditions to favour mycoproteingrowth. Conditions can be controlled to optimise mycoprotein growthrate/selectivity or to achieve a preferred ratio of mycoprotein toethanol by manipulating physiological conditions through processvariables such as substrate flux or/and oxygen level;

Heat Treatment and Isolation of the mycoprotein fermentation brewprovides an isolated (by filtration or centrifugation) and dried solidbulk mycoprotein product. The heat treatment of the mixture is carriedout to reduce the nucleic acid (RNA) content of the product;

Anaerobic Fermentation is carried out to convert residual carbohydratesto ethanol. This can be carried out using either or both mycoprotein andconventional brewer's yeast (e.g. S. cerevisiae);

Distillation is used to separate ethanol from the fermentation mixtures;

Drying removes residual water from the distilled ethanol to satisfy thespecification of bio-ethanol fuel. This is conventionally carried outusing molecular sieves; Isolation of the solid protein/fibre from thegrain produces a high protein product typically used as livestock feed.When isolated and dried together with the evaporated residue fromdistillation incorporating the soluble components of the fermentationmixtures it is conventionally called distillers dried grains withsolubles (DDGS).

shows a representative process known in the art for preparing bioethanolalone. In this process only an anaerobic process is described for theproduction of the bioethanol.

As can be seen from the various processes exemplified in −8 the presentinvention provides a separation phase where insoluble materials such asprotein and fibre are removed in order to provide a solution whichcomprises solubilised carbohydrates suitable for subsequentfermentation.

In the various embodiments depicted in FIGS. 2-8 an integrated processis provided which can produce both ethanol and mycoprotein, as well as aspent waste material, dried distiller grains with solubles (DDGS) whichmay be used as an animal feed product.

EXAMPLES SECTION Experimental Procedures 1.1 Microorganisms and CultureConditions

The microorganism used in the mycoprotein (and ethanol) fermentationswas the filamentous fungus F. venenatum A3/5 (20334), purchase fromATCC. Master cultures were produced by inoculating liquid culturescontaining minimal Vogel medium with 40 g/L glucose from potato dextroseagar (PDA) plates. They were incubated for 72 h at 150 rpm and 28° C. onan orbital shaker, before adding 20% glycerol to the cultures andstoring them at −80° C. in cryo vials. Furthermore PDA plates were grownat 30° C. and 0% CO₂ in an incubator and then stored at 4° C.

For the ethanol fermentation the yeast S. cerevisiae was also used(supplied from the culture collection of Strathclyde Institute ofPharmacy and Biomedical Sciences). It was grown in MYPG medium with 1 Lcontaining: 3 g malt extract, 3 g yeast extract, 5 g peptone and 10 gglucose, whereas the glucose was added after autoclaving in order toprevent the Maillard reaction. The pH was adjusted to 5.5 and tosolidify the medium 15 g/L agar were added. Plates were inoculated witha loop and incubated for 24 h at 30° C. in an incubator and then storedat 4° C. Master cultures were produced by inoculating a liquid cultureand incubating it for 24 h on an orbital shaker at 30° C. and 250 rpmprior to adding 20% glycerol and storing at −80° C. in cryo vials.

1.2 Inoculum Preparation

The inoculum of F. venenatum was prepared by inoculating a de-frostedvial from the −80° C. cell bank into a 200 mL aliquot of Vogels media.The culture was incubated at 30 degree's for a period of twenty-fourhours. A 50 mL aliquot of this culture (giving an inoculum of 10% v/v)was removed and transferred to a centrifuge tube. This was centrifugedat 8000 rpm for a period of 10 minutes. The supernatant was removed andan equal volume of sterile distilled water was added to re-suspend thepellet of F. venenatum. This was then centrifuged as before at 8000 rpmfor a 10 minute period. The supernatant was again removed and theFusarium venentum pellet re-suspended in a 20 mL aliquot of sterilewheat medium. This aliquot was used to inoculate the bioreactor via thesyringe septum port.

Preparation of the S. cerevisiae inoculum followed a similar approach. Avial from the cell bank was defrosted and used to inoculate a 200 mLflask containing MYPG media. When the cell density had reachedsufficient levels (optical density of approximately 1 Au) a 50 mLaliquot of the culture was centrifuged, washed with distilled water, andre-suspended in wheat media following the same procedure as was carriedout with the F. venenatum inoculum.

1.3 Medium Preparation

1.3.1 Defined Medium

The defined medium used for the fermentation and shake flasks wasprepared according to Vogel (1956). The carbon source sucrose wassubstituted with glucose and 40 g/L instead of 15 g/L were used.

1 L of medium contained: 2.17 g Trisodium citrate, 5 g Potassiumdihydrogen phosphate, 2 g Ammonium nitrate, 0.2 g Magnesium sulfateheptahydrate, 0.1 g calcium chloride dihydrate, 0.25 mg Biotin and 5 mLTrace Element Solution.

For the trace element solution the following trace elements weredissolved in 95 mL distilled water: 5 g Citric acid monohydrate, 5 gzinc sulfate heptahydrate, 1 g ammonium ferrous sulphate hexahydrate,0.25 g cupric sulfate pentahydrate, 0.05 g manganese sulfatemonohydrate, 0.05 g boric acid and 0.05 g sodium molybdate dihydrate.

1.3.2 Wheat Hydrosylate (WH)

The wheat grain was milled to a flour material using an IKA analyticalmill. This flour was dissolved in distilled water heated to 90° C. witha final flour concentration in the region of 70 g/L. Once in solutionthe pH of the system was adjusted to 7 before the addition of α-amylaseenzyme at a loading of 1% w/w of the added wheat flour. This solutionwas maintained at 90° C. and agitated for a 1 hour period. The solutionwas then allowed to cool whilst still being agitated until a temperaturein the region of 50° C. was reached. The pH of the solution was thenadjusted to 4.6-4.8 using 1 M hydrochloric acid. The glucoamylase enzymewas then added again with a loading of 1% w/w relative to the amount ofwheat flour added. This solution was then incubated for a 16 hour periodin a shaking incubator at 50° C. and 100 rpm.

The enzyme treated media was then cooled to room temperature,transferred to centrifuge vessels and centrifuged at 6,000 rpm for a10-minute period. The supernatant was passed through a 0.2 μm filterpaper using a Buchner funnel and the filtrate collected for use in thefermentation process. The filtrate was then autoclaved again. Theprocedure of the starch hydrolysis was performed referring toPanagiotopoulos et al. (2009), Gadonna-Widehem et al. (2012) and theenzyme datasheets provided by Sigma.

1.4 Biomass Estimation

The biomass levels of F. venenatum and S. cerevisiae were estimated foreach of the samples taken during the fermentations.

F. venenatum cell weight estimation was achieved using microfiberfilters. A glass microfiber filter was numbered and the mass of the dryfilter recorded. The filter was placed in a Buchner funnel and a 1 mLaliquot of the fermentation sample passed through the filter. Thisprocess was repeated in triplicate for each sample. Filters weresubsequently placed in a petri dish and dried in an oven at 50° C. for aperiod of 24 hours. The filters were then re-weighed, and if necessarydried again until a stable reading was observed. Biomass was calculatedby subtracting the previously recorded weight of the empty filter. Sincethe process was carried out in triplicate the reported value was theaverage of the three weights recorded.

S. cerevisiae dry cell weight estimation was carried out using eppendorftubes. Eppendorf tubes were dried in a desiccator and the weight of thedry, empty tube recorded. A 1 mL aliquot of the fermentation sample waspipetted into the tube and then centrifuged at 6000 rpm for a 10-minuteperiod. The supernatant was removed and the cell pellet dried. The tubewas re-weighed, until a stable reading was observed, and the mass of theempty tube subtracted to give the mass of cells present. Since a 1 mLaliquot of the fermentation sample was utilised, the value determinedhere was quoted as the dry cell weight in g/mL. All samples were againanalysed in triplicate with the quoted value the average of the threereplicates.

1.5 Glucose Quantification

The glucose concentration present in each sample was measured using theYSI biochemistry analyser. Early samples required a dilution factor inthe region of ×10 to be applied in order to reduce the glucoseconcentrations to levels that the biochemistry analyser was able toreproducibly quantify. During the Saccharomyces fermentation the latersamples could be analysed directly without the need for any dilutionsteps to be performed.

1.6 Ethanol Quantification

The quantification of ethanol in the samples was achieved using a highperformance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method. Separation was achievedusing a REZEX ROA-H⁺ organic acid chromatography column and a 0.005 Nsulphuric acid mobile phase at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. Detection wasvia a refractive index detector.

1.7 Shake Flask Cultivation

Shake flask culture cultivations were performed in 500 mL or 100 mLconical flasks containing 200 mL or 40 mL medium (MYPG or WheatHydrolysate with Vogel salts). The flasks were incubated on a verticalshaker set to 150 rpm and 28° C. for F. venenatum cultures and at 30° C.and 250 rpm for S. cerevisae cultures.

1.8 Bioreactor Batch Cultivation

1.8.1 F. venenatum Batch Cultivation

The mycoprotein batch fermentations were performed in two differentfermentation systems which are described below. The fermentationtemperature was 28° C. and the pH was controlled to 6 with 2M sodiumhydroxide. The DO probe was calibrated with oxygen free nitrogen for the0% O₂ value and the slope calibration was performed with compressed air.The probe calibration was performed at fermentation conditions. Theinoculum, a 72 hour shake flask culture grown at 28° C. and 150 rpm on avertical shaker, made up 10% v/v of the final fermentation volume. Themedium used for the fermentation was either Medium N (Vogel 1956) orwheat hydrolysate supplemented with Vogel salts. In case of using thewheat hydrolysate as the fermentation medium, rapeseed oil was used asan antifoam reagent whenever required.

1.8.1.1 Applikon

The borosilicate vessel of this fermentation system has a total volumeof 2 L and the fermentations were performed at a working volume of 1.5 Lwith a height to diameter ratio of 2:1. The fermenter is equipped withfour removable baffles and two six bladed Rushton impellers, powered byan overhead Applikon P100 Motor. The aeration was realised by spargingfiltered air through a ring sparger positioned underneath the impeller.The pH was measured with a Mettler Toledo pH probe and for determinationof the dissolved oxygen a Mettler Toledo DO probe was used. An Applikonheating jacket was used to heat the fermenter. The system wasfurthermore equipped with a temperature probe and a condenser to preventevaporation. An Applikon Bio-Console ADI 1035 unit was used incombination with the Applikon Bio-Control ADI 1031 control unit tocontrol the parameters. The agitation used with this fermentation systemwas 600 rpm.

1.8.2 Ethanol fermentation

The ethanol fermentation was performed in two different fermentationsystems described below in detail. The agitation used was 500 rpm andthe temperature was controlled at 30° C. The pO₂ probe calibration wasperformed at fermentation conditions. The 0% 02 value was set byaerating with oxygen free nitrogen and the slope of the probe wascalibrated with compressed air. The pH was controlled with 2M sulphuricacid and 25% v/v ammonia to a value of 5.5. The fermentation broth wasonly aerated with 0.82 vvm between 8 and 18 hours of fermentation time.The inoculum, a 24 hour shake flask culture (30° C., 250 rpm), made up5% v/v of the final fermentation volume. To control foaming during thefermentation PPG was added as required.

1.8.2.1 Biostat C (C15-3) with DCU 3 (B.Braun Biotech)

The stainless steel fermenter has a total volume of 22 L and a doublewall which allows heating or cooling of the fermenter. It was a sidewall viewing window and is equipped with four baffles, as well as threesix bladed Rushton impellers which are above a ring sparger. The pO₂probe as well as pH probe were from Mettler Toledo. The height todiameter ratio was 3:1 with a diameter of 21 cm and a height of 57 cm.The DCU-3 Unit allowed controlling and monitoring of the fermentation.The pH was controlled with help of the acid and base pumps. Furthermorethe system is equipped with an antifoam pump which was used as required.

1.8.2.2 DASGIP (Eppendorf)

The fermentation system allows the performance of four parallelfermentations, which can be controlled independently. The flat bottomfermenter vessels have a diameter of 9 cm and a height of 24 cm whichequals a height to diameter ratio of 3:1. The vessels have a workingvolume of 400-1500 mL. The overhead drive agitates the two six bladedRushton impellers. Aeration is achieved by pumping air through a sterilefilter through an L-sparger. The system is fully equipped with a mainunit which heats the vessels, acid and base pumps, pH and pO₂ detectionunits, temperature detector, off-gas analysis, and agitation control.

Results 1.9 Wheat Media

The wheat media utilised for this fermentation was obtained followingthe procedure outlined (1.3). This particular media preparation wasusing the ‘RCS’ identified batch of wheat with a loading of 146 g wheatflour dissolved in 2 L of distilled water. An enzyme loading of 1.46 gof α-amylase and 1.5 g of glucoamylase were utilised in the process.

Glucose concentrations measured using the YSI biochemical analyser atthe various stages in the media preparation, are listed in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Glucose concentrations at various stages during enzyme treatmentof wheat media. Mean Glucose Glucose Glucose Dilution Glucose Stage 1(g/L) 2 (g/L) 3 (g/L) Factor (g/L) Pre-enzyme addition 0.045 0.046 0.047None 0.046 Post α-amylase 0.588 0.589 0.583 None 0.587 Pre glucoamylase0.653 0.639 0.651 None 0.648 addition Post Filtration 4.65  4.53  4.38 x10 45.20

The following experiments were performed to support the invention.

TABLE 2 Experiments supporting the invention. Experiment Aim Experiment1 Production of mycoprotein from a carbohydrate feedstock (wheathydrolysate) using a single microorganism. Experiment 2 Production ofethanol from a carbohydrate feedstock (wheat hydrolysate) using a singlemicroorganism. Experiment 3 Production of mycoprotein and ethanol by a 2step fermentation with partial conversion of the carbohydrate in thefirst step and where the operating conditions are controlled in favourof each product. Two microorganisms are used. Experiment 4 Production ofmycoprotein and ethanol by a 2 step fermentation with partial conversionof a carbohydrate feedstock (wheat hydrolysate) in the first step andwhere the operating conditions are controlled in favour of each product(no oxygen limitation, oxygen limitation and oxygen starvation). Asingle microorganism is used.

1.10 Experiment 1

1.10.1 Aims & Objectives

The objective of this experiment was to investigate the feasibility ofgrowing F. venenatum for mycoprotein production using a carbohydratefeedstock (wheat hydrolysate).

1.10.2 Experimental Conditions

Shake flask cultures of F. venenatum were initially grown in wheathydrolysate and in glucose (both media supplemented with Vogel salts) tocompare the growth profile in the two different medium. Flasks wereperformed and analysed in triplicate. Samples were taken after 72 hoursand analysed for biomass and glucose content (9).

The fermentation set-up for the mycoprotein fermentation was: aerationwith 1 slpm and the stirrer speed was set to 1000 rpm. The temperaturewas held at 28° C., the pH was set to 6 and the fermenter was inoculatedwith a 72 h shake flask culture of 10% v/v of the final fermentationvolume. The wheat hydrolysate for the fermentation was supplemented withVogel salts. The first fermentations revealed the problem of strongbuild-up of foam at the beginning of the fermentation. This led toaccumulation of biomass in the foam and in conclusion only growth on topof the fermentation broth but not in solution. The foaming is presumablycaused by the proteins in the wheat hydrolysate and as the minimal Vogelmedium used in previous fermentations did not contain proteins foamingwas not an issue in previous batch fermentations and furthermore alsodoes not present a problem in the current used industrial process.

To overcome this problem rapeseed oil was used as an antifoam reagent.Rapeseed oil was chosen because it could be used in a food grade productand would be an economical solution. It may also be used as a carbonsource by the Fusarium which would lead to higher yields and as foamingwas only a significant problem at the beginning of a process this wouldnot be a problem at later time points.

As the use of rapeseed oil as an antifoam reagent alone could notovercome the problem of accumulation of the inoculum on top of theliquid level in the fermenter, an aeration and agitation profile wasused. In detail this means that the agitation and aeration were slowlyraised over a time course of 1.5 hours. The used agitation and aerationrates are shown in the table below.

TABLE 3 Agitation and aeration profile of the batch fermentation of F.venenatum with wheat hydrolysate. Depicted are the time points when theparameters were raised. Fermentation time [h] Agitation [rpm] Aeration[L/min] 0 150 250 0.5 300 500 1 450 750 1.5 600 1000

1.10.3 Results

With the use of this profile a successful batch fermentation wasperformed which can be seen in 10. The maximal reached biomass in thisfermentation was 8.97 g/L which taking into account a starting glucoseconcentration of 49.46 g/L gives a yield of 18.1%. This reached yield isonly half of the yield which was reached in the batch fermentation withminimal Vogel medium. This is probably due to a strong oxygen limitationat the beginning of the fermentation which crucially restricts growth.The dissolved oxygen decreases rapidly at the beginning of thefermentation as the aeration and agitation is very low at the beginningwhich is disadvantageous for oxygen transfer into the fermentation broth(data not shown). A higher mycoprotein yield could possibly be reachedby improving the oxygen supply, as also 9.98 g/L ethanol was produced asa side product during the fermentation. The production of such highlevels of ethanol during this fermentation were not expected and furtherexperiments will be done to investigate the effect of culture conditionson the co-production of ethanol and mycoprotein by F. venenatum (section1.13).

1.10.3.1 F. venenatum Growth in Partially Hydrolysed Media (No Use ofEnzymes)

Due to considerations about the economy of the process and the highcosts in the purchase of hydrolysing enzymes and the high costs of thehydrolysing process due to heating/cooling steps and pH adaptations, itwas taken into account to use wheat flour which was only dissolved inwater or partially hydrolysed wheat by only performing the liquefactionstep. To investigate what influence this would have on the growth of theFusarium strain, Fusarium it was grown in shake flasks in differenthydrolysates supplemented with Vogel salts. For this purpose 70 g/Lwheat flour were dissolved in 90° C. water and then only theliquefaction step was performed with 0.5% w/w α-amylase in one sampleand both the liquefaction and saccharification step with the additionaluse of 1% w/w glucoamylase performed in the other sample. A third onedid not contain any enzymes. The three media were analysed with HPLC andused for shake flask experiments.

The HPLC analysis of the different hydrolysates showed that only thehydrolysate with both the liquefaction and saccharification stepcontained glucose and 70 g/L wheat flour yielded 48 g/L glucose. Theexperiment was performed in triplicate in 500 mL shake flasks containing200 mL medium supplemented with Vogel salts and samples were taken after24, 48 and 72 hours and analysed in triplicate.

The results of this experiment show that F. venenatum can grow equallywell in a medium which only consists of wheat hydrolysate with addedVogel salts (11). It therefore is assumed that it uses the starch insolution as a carbon source. The growth is slightly faster in theentirely hydrolysed medium which is presumably caused by the need forthe production of amylases in the Fusarium to utilise the starch as anenergy source. HPLC data (not shown) suggests that even in the mediumwithout any enzymes disaccharides are present which might be utilised atthe beginning of the incubation and which might be the reason why nodifferences in growth can be observed in the first 24 hours. After 72hours the biomass in all flasks was approximately 7 g/L dry biomass withno noteworthy differences.

1.11 Experiment 2

1.11.1 Aims & Objectives

In order to show that the integration of the processes of themycoprotein fermentation and the ethanol fermentation is possible,preliminary experiments were conducted to prove that S. cerevisiae growsin wheat hydrolysate (section 1.10.3.1). The yeast was also grown infiltrate of the mycoprotein fermentation to observe if growth isexistent and to determine if F. venenatum produces anything whichinhibits the growth of S. cerevisiae (section 1.11.3.2).

1.11.2 Experimental Conditions

1.11.3 Results

1.11.3.1 Growth of S. cerevisiae in Wheat Hydrolysate

Shake flask experiments were performed. For this purpose 100 mL shakeflasks were filled with 40 mL medium and grown for 24 h at 250 rpm and30° C. The flasks were grown and analysed in triplicate. The results ofthe OD and dry biomass determination are depicted in 2.

The results of this experiment show that S. cerevisiae grows equallywell in the hydrolysed wheat which was supplemented with the Vogel saltsand therefore an integration of the processes is possible. It can bepresumed that the wheat hydrolysate contains proteins and othernutrients which are essential for the growth of S. cerevisiae, as themedium which only contained glucose and Vogel salts did not promote thesame growth.

1.11.3.2 Batch Fermentation of S. cerevisiae with Wheat Hydrolysate

In order to show that an integration of the two fermentation processesis possible a fermentation of S. cerevisiae with Wheat Hydrolysate wasperformed. The used fermentation system was DASGIP (Eppendorf) whichallowed the execution of four fermentations at the same time. Twofermentations were performed with MYPG as a control and twofermentations with Wheat Hydrolysate (35 g/L flour, 0.5% w/w α-amylase,1% w/w glucoamylase) supplemented with Vogel salts. The working volumewas 800 mL and the fermentation was run for 24 hours, whereas aerationat 0.82 vvm was only present between 8 to 18 hours of fermentation time.The growth of the yeast was monitored by measuring the optical densityand determination of the dry biomass.

Both the trend of the optical density and the dry biomass trend of allfour fermentations did not show noticeable differences over the timecourse of the fermentation, 2 and 3.

The HPLC analysis of the samples yielded the following values for theinitial glucose concentrations and the final ethanol concentrations. Inaddition the yield of the conversion of glucose to ethanol wascalculated. There yields of the fermentations with WH were slightlyhigher but in general the trend of both fermentations was similar.

TABLE 4 Analysis of glucose concentration at the beginning of the S.cerevisiae fermentation and the maximum ethanol concentration. The yieldof the conversion of glucose into ethanol was calculated. FermenterGlucose [g/L] Ethanol [g/L] Yield [%] 1 25.91 7.21 27.8 2 25.12 6.9627.7 3 24.20 6.93 28.6 4 23.07 6.81 29.5

1.12 Experiment 3

1.12.1 Aims & Objectives

The objective of this experiment was to demonstrate the feasibility ofan integrated bioprocess for the production of mycoprotein (F.venenatum) and ethanol (using S. cerevisiae) using expired feed gradewheat as the growth medium. Previous experiments carried out hadsuggested that both the Fusarium and Saccharomyces could be successfullygrown on the hydrolysed wheat medium (section 1.10 and 1.11). Thisexperiment built on these findings, attempting to grow the Fusarium to apoint where sufficient biomass was obtained whilst glucose stillremained present in the system to further be utilised by S. cerevisiae.

1.12.2 Experimental Conditions

1.12.2.1 Fermentation Process

Experimental conditions are detailed in Table 5.

TABLE 5 Experimental conditions for Experiment 3. ParameterSetting/Value Experimental Conditions Growth Medium Hydrolysed wheat(α-amylase & glucoamylase) Medium Volume 500 mL pH control Yes Acid 1Mol/L Sulphuric Acid Base 2 Mol/L Ammonium Hydroxide Antifoam RapeseedOil Antifoam Volume  1 mL Process Parameters Agitation 300-900 rpmAeration 0.5-0.75 lpm (1-1.5 vvm) pH Setpoint 6.0 Dissolved Oxygen 30%Setpoint Cascaded Yes (for first 20 hours then no cascade, 300 rpm, 0vvm)

1.12.3 Sampling & Results

Samples of the culture media were removed immediately post inoculationand then at various time points over the course of the fermentation.

Glucose concentrations were estimated for each of the collected samplesusing the YSI biochemistry analyser (1.5) as well as the biomass levelsof each organism (1.4). As this analysis was carried out in triplicatethe reported values were the mean of the three replicates (5 and FIG.16).

Ethanol quantification in the samples was achieved using the HPLC method(1.6) and the results are also detailed in 6.

1.12.4 Discussion

This experiment demonstrated the ability to integrate the twofermentation processes of interest. The first stage demonstrated theability to grow the F. venenatum to a biomass level in the region of 10g/L. This biomass was then harvested and the media, still containing inthe region of 20 g/L glucose, re-sterilised. This media was theninoculated with S. cerevisiae and the growth of this organismsubsequently achieved. After a period of approximately 16 hours theculture was starved of oxygen to promote the production of ethanol. Thefermentation was continued until a total fermentation time ofapproximately forty hours was reached, with samples taken at varioustime points for ethanol quantification using the developed HPLC method(1.6).

Ethanol was not detected during the fermentation of the Fusariumvenentaum (data not shown). Following inoculation and initial growth ofthe S. cerevisiae ethanol was noted in the samples (approximately 5g/L), 6.

This demonstrates the feasibility of the approach to integrating the twobioprocesses—Fusarium venenantum fermentation for the production ofmycoprotein followed by a S. cerevisiae fermentation and the productionof ethanol using expired feed grade wheat as the growth medium.Optimisation of the process should be carried out to produce the maximumyields of mycoprotein and ethanol from the fermentations to improve theoverall process efficiency.

1.12.5 Conclusions

The results have demonstrated that integration of the two bioprocessesfor the production of the desired products is possible.

1.13 Experiment 4

A number of fermentations were carried out in an attempt to demonstratethe feasibility of a bioprocess for the production of mycoprotein (asfood) and ethanol (as fuel) with Fusarium venenatum using expired feedgrade wheat as the growth medium.

1.13.1 Aims & Objectives

The objective of this experiment was to demonstrate the feasibility of abioprocess using Fusarium venenatum for the production of bothmycoprotein and ethanol using hydrolysed feed grade wheat as asubstrate.

Previous carried out experiments had suggested that Fusarium venenatumproduces either biomass or ethanol depending on the aeration profileused. For this purpose three different aeration profiles were being usedin order to determine the differences in biomass and ethanol production.A control fermentation with defined Vogel medium (VM) was used and wasaerated throughout the whole course of the fermentation.

The first 20 hours of fermentation time all four fermentations wereaerated with the same cascade without oxygen limitation. After 20 hours,fermentation one (VM1) and two (WH2) were further on aerated, whereas infermentation three (WH3) was oxygen limited by setting the aeration to0.1 vvm after 20 hours of fermentation. Fermentation four (WH4) theaeration was switched off, which lead to an oxygen starvation. Theapplied conditions are depicted in Table 6.

TABLE 6 Overview of each fermentation condition used to investigateinfluence of oxygen limitation. Aeration Aeration Oxygen FermentationMedium 1-20 h 20-95 h limitation 1 VM1 1-3 vvm (30% 1-3 vvm (30% nolimitation DO) DO) 2 WH2 1-3 vvm (30% 1-3 vvm (30% no limitation DO) DO)3 WH3 1-3 vvm (30% 0.1 vvm Limitation DO) 4 WH4 1-3 vvm (30% 0 vvmstarvation DO)

1.13.2 Experimental Conditions

The wheat hydrolysate which was used in fermentation two, three and fourwas prepared according to 1.3.

1.13.3 Sampling & Results

Samples of the culture media were taken pre inoculation and immediatelypost inoculation. Samples were then taken twice daily over the course ofthe fermentation. Details of the samples, their times and the variousmonitored process parameters were recorded.

Glucose concentrations were estimated for each of the collected samplesusing the YSI biochemistry analyser (1.5) as well as the biomass levelsof each organism (1.4). As this analysis was carried out in triplicatethe reported values were the mean of the three replicates. Ethanolquantification in the samples was achieved using the HPLC methoddescribed in 1.6.

1.13.3.1 Fermentation 1

Fermentation one was run without oxygen limitation for the Fusariumvenenatum. This fermentation was used as a control, for which reasonVogel medium with glucose as a carbon source was used as thefermentation medium instead of wheat hydrolysate. The purpose of thiswas to compare the growth between the different media and determinepossible differences. It was expected to yield more biomass in thefermentations without oxygen limitations and not detect considerableamounts of ethanol.

1.13.3.1.1 Experimental Conditions

The experimental parameters utilised for this fermentation process areoutlined in Table 7. This fermentation served as a control and wascompared to fermentation two.

TABLE 7 Experimental conditions for fermentation one. ParameterSetting/Value Experimental Conditions Growth Medium Vogel medium with 45g/L glucose Medium Volume 800 mL pH control Yes Acid 2 Mol/L sulphuricacid Base 25% v/v ammonia solution Antifoam Rapeseed Oil Antifoam Volume1 mL (and as required) Process Parameters Phase 1 (0-20 h) Phase 2(20-95 h) Agitation 300-1200 rpm 300-1200 rpm Aeration 0.8-2.4 slpm (1-3vvm) 0.8-2.4 slpm (1-3 vvm) pH Setpoint 6 6 Dissolved Oxygen 30% 30%Setpoint Cascaded Yes Yes

1.13.3.1.2 Results

In fermentation one most of the biomass was produced in the first 20hours of the fermentation where it reached levels of 22 g/L of drybiomass. The maximum dry biomass was reached at the end of thefermentation after 96 hours, when 25 g/L of dry biomass were present. Noethanol was detected throughout the course of the fermentation. After 20hours only 0.4 g/L of glucose of the initial 43.5 g/L were available forthe Fusarium. The trends of the dry biomass, ethanol and glucose levelscan be seen in 7, 8 and 9.

1.13.3.1.3 Conclusions

As expected, no ethanol was produced in this fermentation, while ityielded large amounts of biomass of 25 g/L. The biomass production couldprobably be increased by feeding substrate into the fermenter andharvesting biomass. With increasing biomass an increased viscosity canbe observed, which impedes mixing and oxygen transfer. Thereforeharvesting biomass can be beneficial for the production of biomass.

1.13.3.2 Fermentation 2

The substrate used in fermentation two was wheat hydrolysatesupplemented with Vogel salts which was also used in fermentation three(1.13.3.3) and four (1.13.3.4). It was not oxygen limited over thecourse of the fermentation. This fermentation was compared toFermentation one in order to give conclusions about differences in yieldbetween the used media. It was expected to obtain closer results fromthis fermentation compared to fermentation one with Vogel medium.

1.13.3.2.1 Fermentation Process

In fermentation two wheat hydrolysate was used as a fermentation medium.The set point for the dissolved oxygen was set to 30%. The furtherexperimental conditions are detailed in Table 8.

TABLE 8 Experimental conditions for fermentation two. ParameterSetting/Value Experimental Conditions Growth Medium Wheat Hydrolysatewith Vogel salts Medium Volume 800 mL pH control Yes Acid 2 Mol/Lsulphuric acid Base 25% v/v ammonia solution Antifoam Rapeseed OilAntifoam Volume 1 mL (and as required) Process Parameters Phase 1 (0-20h) Phase 2 (20-95 h) Agitation 300-1200 rpm 300-1200 rpm Aeration0.8-2.4 slpm (1-3 vvm) 0.8-2.4 slpm (1-3 vvm) pH Setpoint 6 6 DissolvedOxygen 30% 30% Setpoint Cascaded Yes Yes

1.13.3.2.2 Results

The dry biomass, ethanol and glucose trends of the fermentation withwheat hydrolysate and no oxygen limitation are shown in 7, 8 and 9. Themaximum dry biomass concentration of 21 g/L was reached after 44 hoursalthough glucose levels reached 0.13 g/L after 27 hours. Ethanol wasonly present after 20 hours but was possibly used as a carbon sourceafterwards and no ethanol could be detected in the further course of thefermentation.

1.13.3.2.3 Conclusions

The fermentation yielded approximately the same biomass levels as thefirst fermentation. The initial glucose levels were lower which explainsthe difference in reached biomass levels. Furthermore ethanol was notdetected throughout the fermentation with the exception of the 20 hoursample.

1.13.3.3 Fermentation 3

In fermentation three the effect of oxygen limitation on the ethanolproduction was investigated. The results were compared to the previousfermentations, in particularly to the fermentation with oxygenstarvation conditions (fermentation four). It should give furtherinsight into the influence of the presence of oxygen on ethanolproduction.

1.13.3.3.1 Experimental Conditions

The experimental conditions are detailed in Table 9. Wheat hydrolysatesupplemented with Vogel salts was used as a fermentation medium andafter a 20 hour phase of no oxygen limitation the aeration was set to0.1 vvm in order to obtain oxygen limiting conditions.

TABLE 9 Experimental conditions for fermentation three. ParameterSetting/Value Experimental Conditions Growth Medium Wheat Hydrolysatewith Vogel salts Medium Volume 800 mL pH control Yes Acid 1M sulphuricacid Base 25% v/v ammonia solution Antifoam Rapeseed Oil Antifoam Volume1 mL (and as required) Process Parameters Phase 1 (0-20 h) Phase 2(20-95 h) Agitation 300-1200 rpm 300 rpm Aeration 0.8-2.4 slpm (1-3 0.08slpm (0.1 vvm) vvm) pH Setpoint 6 6 Dissolved Oxygen 30% No setpointSetpoint Cascaded Yes No

1.13.3.3.2 Results

In fermentation three the starting glucose concentration was 34.5 g/Land glucose was depleted from the fermentation medium after 27 hours.The produced biomass was much lower than in the fermentations under nooxygen limitation (fermentation 1 and 2) with a maximum value of 11 g/Lwhich was detected after 75 hours of fermentation time. Ethanolproduction reached its highest value of 4.8 g/L after 44 hours. Thetrends for the substrate and products over the course of thefermentation can be seen in 7, 8 and 9.

1.13.3.3.3 Conclusions

In fermentation three (under oxygen limiting conditions) the majoramount of ethanol was produced during the first 24 h under oxygenlimiting conditions. During the later stages of the fermentation theethanol concentration decreased, suggesting it was being utilised as acarbon source by the organism.

1.13.3.4 Fermentation 4

In fermentation four it was studied how much oxygen starvation of theorganism after an initial growth phase of 20 hours would affect theamount of produced ethanol. It was expected to get lower levels ofbiomass during the phase of oxygen starvation but a considerableincrease in the production of ethanol.

1.13.3.4.1 Experimental Conditions

The experimental conditions employed for fermentation four are detailedin Table 10. Wheat hydrolysate was used as a fermentation medium andafter 20 hours of no oxygen limitation the aeration set to 0 vvm inorder to starve the Fusarium of oxygen.

TABLE 10 Experimental conditions for fermentation four. ParameterSetting/Value Experimental Conditions Growth Medium Wheat hydrolysatewith Vogel salts Medium Volume 800 mL pH control Yes Acid 1M sulphuricacid Base 2M ammonium hydroxide Antifoam Rapeseed Oil Antifoam Volume 1mL (and as required) Process Parameters Phase 1 (0-20 h) Phase 2 (20-95h) Agitation 300-1200 rpm 300 rpm Aeration 0.8-2.4 slpm (1-3 0 slpm (0vvm) vvm) pH Setpoint 6 6 Dissolved Oxygen 30% No setpoint SetpointCascaded Yes No

1.13.3.4.2 Results

Samples were taken at regular intervals over the course of thefermentation process. Fermentation four had a starting glucoseconcentration of 32.5 g/L and was depleted after 27 hours. The drybiomass also peaked after 27 hours (10 g/L). Ethanol concentrations wereat its highest at the end of the fermentation and reached 11.7 g/L. Thedetailed course of the determined parameters is depicted in 7, 8 and 9.

1.13.3.4.3 Conclusions

The results from this fermentation suggest that oxygen starvation isadvantageous for ethanol production. After switching to the aeration offbiomass did not increase anymore but decreased until the end of thefermentation. Although the biomass concentration decreased, ethanolcontinued to increase during the starvation phase of the fermentationsand reached its highest levels at the end of the of the process. Glucosewas depleted after 27 hours, it is possible that other oligosaccharidespresent in the wheat hydrolysate were used for the production of ethanol

1.13.3.5 Experiment 4 Conclusions

In order to understand the effect of the different aeration profiles onbiomass and ethanol production, the process parameters of thefermentations were compared. In 7 it can be seen that It is very clearthat the oxygen limited and starved fermentations produce significantlyless dry biomass than the oxygen unlimited fermentations. However,during the aerated phase of the wheat hydrolysate fermentations (first20 h), the growth rate is approximately the same (0.34 g/L·h), showingreproducibility of the process.

Furthermore the production of the second product, ethanol, in thedifferent fermentations was investigated. In these fermentations it wasobserved that oxygen starvation leads to a significantly increasedethanol production (8) which is significantly different from the ethanollevels reached in the other fermentations. After 20 hours all thefermentations carried out with wheat hydrolysate (Fermentation 2-4)showed the same amount of ethanol which was different from thefermentation carried out with Vogel medium (Fermentation 1). Only theoxygen starved fermentation showed ethanol in the fermentation medium atthe end of the fermentation.

In 8 the glucose concentrations over the fermentation course aredepicted. The starting glucose concentrations in the wheat hydrolysatewere slightly lower than in the Vogel medium, however the consumptionrate in all fermentations was approximately 0.40 g/L*h. Biomass andethanol yields on glucose were calculated during the aerated phase(Table 11) and during the whole process time (Table 12) in order toattain a better comparison of the fermentations.

TABLE 11 Process yields during aerated phase of fermentation (first 20h) for the conversion of glucose into biomass and ethanol, as well asbiomass and ethanol productivity. Y_(EtOH/Glc) P_(EtOH) FermentationY_(DCW/Glc) [%] [%] P_(DCW) [g_(DCW)/L*h] [g_(EtOH)/L*h] VM1 44.69 0.000.96 0.00 WH2 28.89 10.55 0.39 0.14 WH3 22.98 20.68 0.30 0.27 WH4 25.4919.59 0.34 0.26 Abbreviations: VM1: Vogel medium, no oxygen limitation;WH2: wheat hydrolysate, no oxygen limitation, WH3: wheat hydrolysate,oxygen limitation; WH4: wheat hydrolysate, oxygen starvation.Y_(DCW/Glc): yield of biomass on glucose, Y_(EtOH/Glc): yield of ethanolon glucose, P_(DCW): Biomass productivity, P_(EtOH): Ethanolproductivity

As expected, during the aerated phase fermentation one (VM1) showed ahigher conversion of biomass on glucose than in the fermentations usingwheat hydrolysate (fermentation two-four). The biomass productivity wasalso a factor of 3 higher in Vogel medium (fermentation one, VM1),indicating that glucose is more efficiently converted into biomass inthe defined medium (VM). However, ethanol production is favoured in thewheat hydrolysate medium (fermentation two-four), even during this phaseof the process.

In Table 12 it can be seen, that although the biomass levels duringfermentation two were lower than in fermentation one, the overall yieldof the conversion of glucose into biomass is similar (—50%).Furthermore, the highest conversion of glucose into ethanol and thehighest ethanol productivity is under oxygen starvation conditions(WH4). This means that these conditions favoured ethanol productioncompared to biomass production (highest under no oxygen limitationconditions).

TABLE 12 Total process yields for the conversion of glucose into biomassand ethanol, as well as biomass and ethanol productivity (overallprocess time 96 h). Y_(DCW/Glc) Y_(EtOH/Glc) P_(DCW) P_(EtOH)Fermentation [%] [%] [g_(DCW)/L*h] [g_(EtOH)/L*h] VM1 50.47  0.00 0.160.00 WH2 49.34  0.00 0.23 0.00 WH3 21.92 16.57 0.08 0.06 WH4 11.33 36.160.04 0.12 Abbreviations: VM1: Vogel medium, no oxygen limitation; WH2:wheat hydrolysate, no oxygen limitation, WH3: wheat hydrolysate, oxygenlimitation; WH4: wheat hydrolysate, oxygen starvation. Y_(DCW/Glc):yield of biomass on glucose, Y_(EtOH/Glc): yield of ethanol on glucose,P_(DCW): Biomass productivity, P_(EtOH): Ethanol productivity

As well as monitoring the substrate and product concentrations, furtherprocess parameters were monitored. Depicted in is the dissolved oxygenconcentration which gives an insight in oxygen levels in thefermentation medium. Fermentation three and four were limited in oxygenafter 20 hours, when the aeration was decreased.

1.13.3.6 Conclusions

The results shown in this report demonstrate that the hypothesis ofproducing biomass as well as ethanol with Fusarium venenatum from feedgrade wheat hydrolysate is feasible. Furthermore, it is alsodemonstrated for the first time that process control (i.e. manipulationaeration conditions) favours either biomass production (no oxygenlimitation conditions) or ethanol production (oxygen starvationconditions). Process optimisation can be done in such a way thataeration is present for long enough to obtain a sufficient biomassconcentration, before the organism can be starved of oxygen andtherefore the fermentation of ethanol can start.

A process with oxygen starving conditions seems preferable for a highethanol yield. Even with very low biomass levels a substantial amount ofethanol can be produced (and is favoured) in the absence of oxygen(fermentation four). It is possible to harvest large amounts of biomassbefore the start of ethanol production phase (first 20 h of theprocess). Therefore, by manipulating the process conditions it ispossible to adjust the process in order to obtain the desired product.

Using a single organism for the production of both products (biomass andethanol) has big economical and downstream processing advantages. Aproduction process can be adapted according to the demand of mycoprotein(biomass) or ethanol by having a prolonged or shortened aerated phase.The process could be improved furthermore by harvesting biomass andfeeding more wheat hydrolysate into the fermentation. Producing ethanolwithout the necessity of aeration would reduce production costssubstantially and would therefore influence the overall process economy.

REFERENCES

-   Cardona C A, Sánchez Ó J: Fuel ethanol production: Process design    trends and integration opportunities. Bioresour Technol 2007,    98:2415-2457.-   Finn B, Harvey L M, McNeil B: Near-infrared spectroscopic monitoring    of biomass, glucose, ethanol and protein content in a high cell    density baker's yeast fed-batch bioprocess. Yeast 2006, 23:507-517

1.-11. (canceled)
 12. An integrated method or system capable ofproducing and isolating filamentous mycoprotein and ethanol from acarbohydrate feedstock.
 13. The method or system according to claim 12,wherein the mycoprotein and ethanol are produced by aerobic digestionand anaerobic fermentation respectively using F. venenatum.
 14. Themethod or system according to claim 12, wherein mycoprotein and ethanolare produced in a 2 step fermentation process with partial conversion ofthe feedstock in the first step and where the operating conditions arecontrolled in each of the steps to preferentially favour one or otherproduct.
 15. The method or system according to claim 14, wherein one ofthe products is fully or partially isolated between the 2 processingsteps.
 16. The method or system according to claim 12, whereinmycoprotein and ethanol are produced in a single fermenter where theoperating conditions are controlled to produce the desired mixture ratioof mycoprotein and ethanol.
 17. The method or system according to claim12, wherein the initial substrate is a grain material and the integratedprocess additionally produces a co-product with increased proteincontent which could be utilised as a source of livestock feed.
 18. Themethod or system according to claim 17, wherein the chosen productionmix maximises production of mycoprotein and the co-product withincreased protein content.
 19. The method or system according to claim12, wherein the operating conditions and resulting production mix ratioor rate of mycoprotein and ethanol can be altered to match phasing ofenergy provision or cost taking into account the higher energy intensityof fermentation under aerobic conditions required to increase theproduction rate of mycoprotein.
 20. An integrated method or system forthe co-production of mycoprotein and ethanol from a cereal material, themethod comprising the steps of: a) providing an aqueous fermentablebroth comprising one or more cereal materials; b) fermenting at least aportion of the aqueous fermentable broth with a micro-organism(s) inorder to obtain mycoprotein or ethanol respectively and partiallyfermented broth; c) separating the mycoprotein or ethanol from thepartially fermented broth; d) fermenting at least a portion of thepartially fermented broth, optionally with a portion of unfermentedaqueous fermentable broth, with a micro-organism(s) in order to obtainethanol or mycoprotein respectively and a spent fermentation residue;and e) isolating the ethanol or mycoprotein from the spent fermentationresidue.
 21. The method or system according to claim 20, wherein themycoprotein and ethanol are produced by aerobic digestion and anaerobicfermentation respectively using F. venenatum.
 22. The method or systemaccording to claim 20, wherein mycoprotein and ethanol are produced in a2 step fermentation process with partial conversion of the feedstock inthe first step and where the operating conditions are controlled in eachof the steps to preferentially favour one or other product.
 23. Themethod or system according to claim 20, wherein mycoprotein is fullyisolated from the first step and a second step conversion to ethanol iscarried out using a microorganism other than the organism used toproduce mycoprotein.
 24. The method or system according to claim 20,wherein the same microorganism(s) (e.g. F. venenatum) is/are used forboth the mycoprotein and ethanol production steps.
 25. The method orsystem according to claim 20, wherein mycoprotein and ethanol areproduced in a single fermenter where the operating conditions arecontrolled to produce the desired mixture ratio of mycoprotein andethanol.
 26. The method or system according to claim 20, wherein theinitial substrate is a grain material and the integrated processadditionally produces a co-product with increased protein content whichcould be utilised as a source of livestock feed.
 27. The method orsystem according to claim 26, wherein the chosen production mixmaximises production of mycoprotein and the co-product with increasedprotein content.
 28. The method or system according to claim 20, whereinthe operating conditions and resulting production mix ratio or rate ofmycoprotein and ethanol can be altered to match phasing of energyprovision or cost taking into account the higher energy intensity offermentation under aerobic conditions required to increase theproduction rate of mycoprotein.